SHRI ASLAM PASHA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

Court
Karnataka High Court

1
Reserved on : 27.04.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7946 OF 2023

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10442 OF 2023


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7946 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1 . SHRI ASLAM PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO.13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

2 . SHRI SYED MUNNER PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO.13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

2
3 . SHRI SYED SARDHAR PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO.13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

4 . SHRI SYED TAJ PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO.13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

5 . M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SHRI ASLAM PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.48/1,
SANJEEVAPPA LANE,
AVENUE ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MAHAMMADALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 001,

3
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPP,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, SPL.PP )


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING IN C.C.NO.18274/2023 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XLII
A.C.M.M, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 379, 409,
420 R/W 120B OF IPC AND RULE 165 R/W 144 OF KARNATAKA
FOREST RULES 1969, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN
CR.NO.3/2021 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT SIT LOKAYUKTA
POLICE, BENGALURU AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AS PER
ANNEXURE A TO C.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10442 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1 . SHRI ASLAM PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO 13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

2 . SHRI SYED MUNEER PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,

4
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO 13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

3 . SHRI SYED SARDHAR PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO 13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

4 . SHRI SYED TAJ PASHA
S/O SYED AZEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS,
R/AT WARD NO 13,
KADRIPALYA STREET,
SIDLAGATTA – 562 105.

5 . M/S RAJAMAHAL SILKS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER,
SHRI ASLAM PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.48/1, SANJEEVAPPA LANE,
AVENUE ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU – 560 002.

... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)

5
AND:


STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, SPL.PP)


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.18305/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XLII A.C.M.M,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 21 AND 23 R/W
4(1),4(1-A) OF MMRD ACT WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN
CR.NO.3/2021 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT SIT LOKAYUKTA
POLICE BENGALURU AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AS PER
ANNEXURE-A, D AND E.


THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

6
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 in both the petitions are
at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in
C.C.No.18274 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 379, 409, 420 r/w 120-B of the IPC and Rules 165 r/w 144
of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and C.C. No.18305 of 2023
registered for offences punishable under Sections 21 and 23 r/w
4(1), 4(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 ('MMDR Act' for short) pending before the
XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.



2. Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts obtaining in Criminal
Petition No.7946 of 2023 are narrated hereinbelow.

7
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
4.1. Petitioner No.5/accused No.5 is a firm engaged in the
business of purchase and trade of iron ore. It is a partnership firm
st
represented by the 1 petitioner/accused No.1 as the Managing
Partner and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the remaining partners. The
Firm is said to have exported iron ore from New Mangalore Port to
China, out of which 4370.250 MTs of iron ore fines are purchased
from accused No.8, M/s Hill Rock Minerals Private Limited. It is the
allegation that M/s Hill Rock Minerals Private Limited had not paid
any royalty to the Government and the said iron ore fines was
produced from a mining lease of accused No.16, one S.B.Minerals,
a partnership firm and the said firm had in turn sold to M/s Eagle
Traders and Logistics, accused No.11 and accused No.11 firm had in
turn sold it to accused No.8. In the entire transaction, it is the
allegation that it has caused loss to the Government exchequer
apart from forest fee not being paid.

4.2. A little history to the said case is the judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in the case of SAMAJ PARIVARTANA
SAMUDAYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

8
OTHERS in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009, which led to
registration of several crimes against several mining companies,
notwithstanding the fact that they were either excavators,
exporters or transporters. A complaint, in the case at hand,
emerges after the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case
by the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) of the Lokayukta, as the
allegation is iron ore involved in the case at hand was less than
50,000 MTs. On 14-06-2021 the SIT of the Lokayukta registers a
crime in Crime No.3 of 2021 on the information that petitioner
No.5’s firm had exported iron ore from New Mangalore port to an
extent of 1,39,445 MTs to China and out of the said export 4,370
MTs was without permit. Therefore, offences under Sections 379,
409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC along with
Sections 21, 23 r/w Section 4(1), 4(1-A) of the MMDR Act was
registered against the petitioners. The Police conduct investigation.
The investigation leads to filing of charge sheet for the offences
punishable under Sections 379, 409, 420, 120-B of the IPC and
Rules 165 r/w Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The
allegation primarily was that accused No.16 has extracted iron ore
from a leased area and has failed to pay royalty to the State

9
Government. Therefore, it is an allegation against accused No.16.
The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence on
20-07-2023 and registers a criminal case. Aggrieved by the taking
of cognizance, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject
petition.


5. The learned senior counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha appearing
for the petitioners would vehemently contend that it is the case of
the prosecution that about 4370 MTs was without permit. But, the
petitioners have not extracted iron ore. It is accused No.16 firm
that has extracted iron ore under a mining lease. Accused No.16
has failed to pay royalty. The petitioners have no knowledge about
non-payment of royalty or non-obtaining of permit from the
Department of Mines and Geology, as the iron ore was purchased at
the port and the petitioners had all the reasons to believe that the
requirement of law had been complied. Even otherwise the learned
senior counsel submits that for the allegation that no royalty is paid
for 4370 MTs, the loss caused to the exchequer is Rs. 50,000/- in
the maximum. The learned senior counsel further submits that the
alleged transaction has taken place in the year 2006 even according

10
to the crime and the complaint is filed in the year 2021; charge
sheet is filed in the year 2023 and cognizance is taken on 20-07-
2023. The concerned Court has blindly taken cognizance without
application of mind qua the delay in the lis . He would seek
quashment of the proceedings on all the aforesaid grounds.


6. Per contra , the learned counsel Sri B.S. Prasad appearing
for the respondent/Special Investigation Team of the Lokayukta
would seek to contend that pursuant to the direction of the Apex
Court, the SIT began investigating, as allegation of illegality
committed in the case at hand was less than 50,000 MTs.
Notifications were then issued in the year 2014 authorizing Police
Officers to conduct investigation and file their final report.
Therefore, on 14-06-2021, the crime comes to be registered. He
would submit that SIT, after investigation, has filed a charge sheet.
It is for the petitioners to come out clean. He would seek to place
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
(2021) 19 SCC 62 to buttress his submission on both the
submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with

11
regard to delay and taking of cognizance. He would seek dismissal
of the petitions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. During
the period in which the CBI was not in picture need not elaborately
be stated. But divulging the periphery is imperative. Petitioner
No.5 is a firm carrying on business in trading of iron ore. It is the
claim of the firm that it is carrying on business throughout in
accordance with law. Illegal mining became subject matter of
certain proceedings before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.562 of 2009. In the said writ petition the Apex Court directed
the CBI to conduct preliminary investigation in respect of 32.27
lakh tonnes of iron ore exported between 01-01-2009 and 31-05-
2010 from a particular port i.e., Belekeri Port by various companies.
Pursuant thereto, investigation/ enquiry was conducted. The report
was placed before the Apex Court. It is then the Apex Court, in

12
terms of its order dated 16-09-2013, permitted the CBI to register
the crime in cases falling within the parameters of what the Apex
Court has held. It reads as follows:
“UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following:

O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the Central Bureau of
Investigation on whose behalf of this interlocutory application
has been filed and we issue the following directions:

(a) The CBI is permitted to register criminal case
against those exporters who were enquired into in the
preliminary enquiry and who had exported iron ore of more than
50,000 MT without valid permits and as recommended by the
Central Empowered Committee in its report dated 5th
September, 2012.

(b) The CBI is permitted to refer the matter with
respect to the exporters who had exported less than 50,000 MT
and were not enquired into in the preliminary enquiry, to the
Government of Karnataka for taking further necessary action
under the relevant laws, as recommended by the Central
Empowered Committee in its Report dated 5th September,
2012.

(c) We also permit the Central Bureau of Investigation
to refer to the Government of Karnataka for taking further
action under relevant laws with regard to those exporters who
were enquired into in the preliminary enquiry and who had
exported less than 50,000 MT of iron ore without valid permits
as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee in its
Report dated 5th September, 2012.

(d) We direct the State of Karnataka to take further
necessary action under the relevant laws as recommended by
the CEC in its Report dated 5th September, 2012 with regard to
those exporters who have exported less than 50,000 MT and

13
report compliance within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of communication of this order.

A copy of this order be furnished to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka and to the Director, Central Bureau of
Investigation for compliance.

We make it clear that the restrictions imposed by Section
6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 will not
apply to the investigations directed by this Court in view of the
judgment of this Court in State of West Bengal & Others v.
Committee for Protection of Domestic Rights, West Bengal and
Another.

When the matter comes up for hearing next, the learned
Additional Solicitor General will apprise this Court as to whether
direction No. 13 in the judgment dated 18th April, 2013 has
been complied with by the Surveyor General of India.”


The CBI was directed to register criminal case against those
exporters who were enquired into in the preliminary enquiry and
who had exported iron ore more than 50,000 MTs. without valid
permit, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee in
its report dated 05-09-2012. The CBI was permitted to refer the
matter with respect to those exporters who had exported less than
50,000 MTs to the Government of Karnataka for further action in
accordance with law.


9. Here comes the genesis of the SIT. A direction was given
in the year 2013 by the Apex Court, notwithstanding the same, the

14
crime does not come about immediately. As observed above, the
date of offence is between 2006 and 2010. The crime is registered
on 14-06-2021. As on the date of registration of crime or the
registration of complaint the issue was barred by limitation. The
punishment in these cases for the offences is maximum 3 years.
The incident undoubtedly pertains to the period between 2006 and
2010. Even if it is considered that the Apex Court permitted
registration of crime in the year 2013, the SIT has taken 8 years to
register the complaint even against these petitioners. The
justification for delay is constitution of SIT taking a longer time. The
constitution of SIT happens in terms of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the year 2014. Even then, the complaint is not registered.
The complaint comes about only on 14-06-2021. The contents of
the FIR are as follows:
“As per source information during the period from 01-04-
2006 to 31-12-2010, M/s Rajamahal Silks, Bangalore, have
exported 1,39,445 MT of iron ore in 6 shipments from
Mangalore port. As per source information M/s Rajamahal Silks
is a partnership firm with four partners. Sri Aslam Pasha is the
managing partner of the firm.

As per source information the partners of the firm and the
employees of the firm, had conspired with Government officials,
other Mine owners, traders and others and illegally extracted
the iron ore and also had stolen the iron ore and transported it
illegally to Mangalore port. As per source information bribe

15
amounts were paid to Government officials for transportation of
illegal iron ore. It is revealed that during the period from 01-04-
2006 to 31-12-2010, out of the total exports, a quantity of
38,221.28 MT of iron ore were found to be illegal and not
possessing valid permits issued by the concerned Department of
Mines and Geology or possessing forged permits, thereby
cheating the State Government and causing loss to the State
Government and wrongful gain to themselves.”

The FIR indicates that the relevant period was between 01-04-2006
and 31-12-2010. Crime admittedly is registered 11 years later.
The learned counsel for the respondent seeks to take refuge under
the protective canopy of the order of the Apex Court as
afore-quoted. The said order also is of the year 2013. The offences
alleged are as afore-quoted. Maximum punishment for all the
offences is 3 years. In such circumstances, Sections 468 and 469 of
the Cr.P.C. become necessary to be noticed. They read as follows:
“ 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the
period of limitation .—(1) Except as otherwise provided
elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an
offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the
expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be—

( a ) six months, if the offence is punishable with
fine only;

( b ) one year, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year;

16
( c ) three years, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of
limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together,
shall be determined with reference to the offence which is
punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case
may be, the most severe punishment.

469. Commencement of the period of limitation.—
(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender,
shall commence,—

( a ) on the date of the offence ; or

( b ) where the commission of the offence was not
known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to
any police officer, the first day on which such
offence comes to the knowledge of such person or
to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or

( c ) where it is not known by whom the offence was
committed, the first day on which the identity of
the offender is known to the person aggrieved by
the offence or to the police officer making
investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.

(2) In computing the said period, the day from which
such period is to be computed shall be excluded."

Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that the complaint be
registered within the period of punishment prescribed for the
respective offences. Section 469 of the Cr.P.C. holds that the period
of limitation would commence from the date on which the offence is

17
committed. It stops at three years. The crime must be registered
within three years from the date of commission of the offence.

10. In the case at hand, as observed hereinabove, even the
respondent seeks refuge under the orders of the Apex Court. The
complaint is registered 8 years after the permission granted by the
Apex Court and 15 years after the incident. Therefore, delay has
vitiated the very registration of crime. The role of these petitioners
is loss that is caused by accused No.16 which need not be gone
into, as it is for accused No.16 to answer the allegation. Insofar as
the present petitioners are concerned, the entire registration of the
complaint is hit by delay in its registration. The Apex Court in the
1
case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL , has
held as follows:
“…. …. ….

14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had
taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the
substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge
Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any
action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful
SKCON
body like I , Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006
written by the Branch Manager of I SKCON , Kolkata. Respondent

1

2023 SCC OnLine SC 650

18
2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting
the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of
bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the
court was filed in the year 2009.

15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate
delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court
itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the
proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by I SKCON , Kolkata
Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not
have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our
opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing
the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken
place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a
sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.

16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint
filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2-2009, it is
discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint
with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material
or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the
allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation
of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the
investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients
constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406
and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as
well as in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value none of
the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants
had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to
the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that
the said documents were executed by the then authorised
SKCON
persons of I , Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents
could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being
not the part of the charge-sheet papers.

17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the
other documents on record of the instant appeals that the
investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or
substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them
for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained
or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly

19
forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of
vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the
circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not
only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of
court's precious time.

18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have
power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers
under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great
caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of
abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy , (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] the
Supreme Court had held that the criminal proceedings could be
quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of
the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be
an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceedings are to be quashed.

19. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark
decision State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] , after considering relevant provisions more particularly
Section 482CrPC and the principles of law enunciated by this
Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under
Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of
powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen
number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under :
(SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)

“ 102 . In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and

20
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.

( 1 ) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.

( 2 ) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.

( 3 ) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.

( 4 ) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code.

( 5 ) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.

( 6 ) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.

( 7 ) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.”

21

20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [ State
of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] this Court had observed that the
court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it
finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of court.

21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it
has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal
D. Vora v. State of T.N. [ Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of
T.N. , (2022) 15 SCC 164: (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 632] that
though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for
quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained
inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a
very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal
complaint.

22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if
the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the
respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained
delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and
abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with
the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious
prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of
process of law , more particularly when neither the allegations
made in the complaint nor in the charge-sheet, disclose any
prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made
against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a
sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-
accused.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

In the light of elucidation of law by the Apex Court and unequivocal
facts obtaining in the case at hand, the petitions deserve to
succeed.

22
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.18274 of 2023 and C.C.No.18305
of 2023 pending before the XLII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out crime in
Crime No.3 of 2021 stand quashed.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of petitioners under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence
the proceedings against any other accused pending
before any other fora.




Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ